Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the Republicons would prefer to keep our elections dirty:

Rep. Rush Holt’s (D-N.J.) Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act seemed like the kind of bill that should sail through Congress. The legislation would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines, adding safeguards to potential recounts
and a layer of integrity to the election process.

Indeed, Holt’s bill was so obviously worthwhile, when it came for a vote in the House Administration Committee a few weeks ago, even House Republicans voted for it — unanimously.

Incredible! A change of heart! We could make America safe for democracy yet. But wait... it's the Republicons we're talking about here. I suspect there's a fly in this ointment - ah-ha, there it is:

First, the White House announced its opposition. Soon after, the same House Republicans who’d voted for the bill in committee didn’t even want it to reach the House floor. (A spokesperson for Republicans on the Administration Committee said lawmakers didn’t realize how expensive it would be, and $685 million for reliable election results was apparently too high a price — though Holt insists it would actually cost far less.)

Shorter House Republicons: "Bu-bu-but Bush said he don't like it, so we were obviously wrong! About face! Integrity in the election process bad! Somebody bring us a lame excuse so we can pretend we're doing this for principle rather than power!"

Many Americans are finally beginning to understand just how fucking ridiculous these con artists are, but never fear - the Republicons can always rely on the 28-percenters. And a conservative-loaded Supreme Court who will pluck the ripe fruit of a contested election and hand it to them with nary a twinge of conscience.

And what happens when we in the reality-based community get upset about such nefarious things? What are we to do? Scalia has some advice:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia usually shies away from media attention, but now that he has a book coming out, and interviews might help sell his new product, Scalia is opening up a bit. He chatted with “60 Minutes” and the discussion turned to “Bush v. Gore.”

Scalia’s message? Critics of the ruling should just “get over it.”

[snip]

It’s possible that I’m just petty. I have a hard time forgiving and forgetting. But every time I hear conservatives argue that we should “get over it,” I’m reminded of why I continue to harbor grudges.

Republicans threw the political world into turmoil in 1998 by launching an impeachment crusade against Bill Clinton. It was an absurd and painful exercise. Those of us who are still annoyed by the fight are supposed to “get over it.”

In 2000, Republicans orchestrated a massive fraud in Florida, and, with the help of the Supreme Court, delivered the presidency to the candidate who came in second. Those of us who harbor resentment are told we should “get over it.”

Bush failed to take the terrorist threat seriously before 9/11? “Get over it.” Bush launched a disastrous war? “Get over it.” Bush is rewarding Swiftboat liars who helped smear a war hero with a vicious lie? “Get over it.”

It’s not enough for the GOP and its allies to engage in offensive conduct; they also insist, after a short while, that we stop being bothered by it.

That's right. We should just let go and, I'm sure, let God. This comes from the same group of assclowns who still obsess over Monica Lewinsky's stained blue dress, mind. Apparently, obsession is supposed to be an exclusive priveledge of Republicon Party membership. And Dems, independents, and other assorted members of the reality-based community should just get over the rampant hypocrisy, law-breaking, lying, and spectacular fuck-ups.

We'll get right on that.

Just as soon as McCain stops making spectacularly stupid claims about the debacle in Iraq:

The AP reports today that as a result of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s recent offensive against Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia, Sadr may “set aside his political ambitions” and restart “a full-scale fight against U.S.-led forces.” The violence would likely show potentially disastrous security implications” across the country.

But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is happy with the outcome. In a blogger conference call today, he said the results in Basra and southern Iraq were a “pleasant turn of events” in his view. Sadr, McCain says, is now marginalized.

Whew! That's great news - for a minute there, I was worried we might have a real horrific mess on our hands. But if McCain, who's just got loads of experience being a POW and a total incompetent on Sunni/Shi'a differences, says Sadir is "marginalized," it must be true, right? He's our Expert. Right?

Sadr is hardly marginalized; in fact, the opposite is likely true. As the AP notes, Sadr still commands at least 60,000 fighters — “5,000 thought to be highly trained commandos” — and he is “emboldened by its strong resistance to an Iraqi-led crackdown.”

Um.

Shit.

How could America's Expert in All Things Mooslim get it so wrong?

McCain has repeatedly misstated the outcome of the events in southern Iraq, for example, falsely claiming that Sadr “declared the ceasefire.” But, as he admitted last week when lauding the operation against Sadr, “Maybe I’m digging for the pony here.”

Ah. Gotcha. It's that whole pony thing again. Well, I've got news for McCain and other advocates of the Pony Strategy: if you have to dig for the pony, that means the pony's already dead. Ponies, in fact, don't live underground.

Get over it.